Open Collections

UBC Library and Archives

‘Beyond library 'science' : (artsy) new professionals reflect on research 2012

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
Beyond Library Science.pdf [ 126.32kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0077929.json
JSON-LD: 1.0077929+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0077929.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0077929+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0077929+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0077929+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0077929.ris

Full Text

	
   1	
   British	
  Columbia	
  Library	
  Association	
  Conference,	
  Conference	
  Paper	
  (April	
  9,	
  2011)	
   	
   	
   	
   Title	
   ‘Beyond	
  Library	
  'Science':	
  (Artsy)	
  New	
  Professionals	
  Reflect	
  on	
  Research	
   Description	
   In	
  light	
  of	
  the	
  increasing	
  emphasis	
  on	
  librarians	
  as	
  scholars,	
  this	
  panel	
  will	
  draw	
   attention	
  to	
  the	
  limitations	
  experienced	
  by	
  new	
  professionals	
  with	
  humanities	
   backgrounds	
  who	
  are	
  operating	
  in	
  an	
  LIS	
  research	
  environment	
  dominated	
  by	
  (social)	
   science	
  methodologies	
  and	
  perspectives.	
  As	
  well	
  as	
  highlighting	
  barriers	
  created	
  by	
   invocations	
  of	
  "pragmatism"	
  that	
  align	
  research	
  support	
  chiefly	
  with	
  quantifiable	
   outcomes,	
  the	
  panel	
  will	
  also	
  deepen	
  understanding	
  of	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  critical	
  humanities	
   methods	
  to	
  the	
  profession.	
  Discussion	
  and	
  networking	
  within	
  the	
  session	
  will	
  hopefully	
   also	
  lead	
  to	
  collaborations	
  in	
  support	
  of	
  a	
  more	
  truly	
  diverse	
  research	
  environment.	
   Panelists	
   Dave	
  Hudson,	
  Learning	
  and	
  Curriculum	
  Support	
  Librarian,	
  University	
  of	
  Guelph	
  	
   Erin	
  Fields,	
  Reference	
  Librarian	
  at	
  University	
  of	
  British	
  Columbia	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   The	
  idea	
  for	
  this	
  discussion	
  came	
  about	
  around	
  a	
  year	
  ago	
  when	
  Dave	
  approached	
  me	
  after	
  a	
   presentation	
  I	
  gave	
  at	
  the	
  Ontario	
  Library	
  Super	
  Conference.	
  	
  Dave	
  and	
  I	
  had	
  a	
  discussion	
  about	
   the	
  barriers	
  in	
  research	
  which	
  fall	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  social	
  science	
  or	
  scientific	
  research	
  perspectives	
   and	
  out	
  of	
  this	
  conversation	
  Dave	
  asked	
  if	
  I	
  would	
  be	
  interested	
  in	
  engaging	
  in	
  discussion	
   around	
  critical	
  humanities	
  research	
  in	
  librarianship	
  as	
  a	
  “new”	
  professional	
  who	
  has	
  background	
   in	
  this	
  kind	
  of	
  research	
  focus	
  and	
  has	
  a	
  strong	
  desire	
  and	
  obligation	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  research.	
  	
  This	
   discussion	
  today	
  comes	
  from	
  our	
  initial	
  conversation.	
  	
  This	
  discussion	
  stems	
  from	
  concerns	
  we	
   have	
  in	
  deploying	
  critical	
  humanities	
  methods	
  in	
  library	
  research	
  and	
  how	
  we	
  feel	
  a	
  barrier	
  in	
   engaging	
  in	
  this	
  type	
  of	
  research	
  as	
  new	
  practicing	
  librarians.	
  	
  Now,	
  what	
  do	
  we	
  mean	
  by	
   “critical	
  humanities	
  methods	
  in	
  library	
  research”	
  exactly?	
  	
  Well,	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  issue	
  is	
  that	
  we’ve	
   had	
  a	
  bit	
  of	
  a	
  hard	
  time	
  finding	
  examples	
  of	
  publications	
  from	
  within	
  the	
  kinds	
  of	
  research	
   communities	
  to	
  which	
  we	
  feel	
  drawn.	
  	
  But	
  there	
  are	
  a	
  few	
  that	
  we’ve	
  come	
  across,	
  to	
  be	
   sure.	
  	
  So,	
  we’re	
  talking	
  about	
  work	
  that,	
  for	
  example,	
  identifies	
  the	
  social	
  construction	
  of	
   knowledge	
  and	
  how	
  this	
  influences	
  information	
  seeking	
  behaviours	
  and	
  practices	
  or,	
  to	
  cite	
   another	
  example,	
  how	
  class,	
  power	
  and	
  the	
  creation	
  of	
  knowledge	
  are	
  interrelated	
  and	
  the	
   library	
  or	
  librarian	
  as	
  neutral	
  is	
  illusory.	
  	
  These	
  sorts	
  of	
  papers	
  depart	
  from	
  traditional	
  research	
   and	
  approach	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  scholarship	
  from	
  a	
  place	
  of	
  reflection,	
  speculation	
  and	
   criticism.	
   	
   This	
  discussion	
  is	
  not,	
  however,	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  in-­‐depth	
  literature	
  review.	
  	
  While	
  we	
  will	
  be	
   drawing	
  on	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  material	
  we’ve	
  come	
  across,	
  our	
  central	
  goal	
  is	
  to	
  talk	
  about	
  our	
   experiences	
  of	
  disciplinary	
  barriers	
  within	
  LIS	
  and	
  about	
  the	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  library	
  research	
   would	
  be	
  different	
  if	
  more	
  space	
  were	
  made	
  for	
  critical	
  humanities	
  methods	
  within	
  the	
   profession.	
  Also,	
  we	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  address	
  the	
  possible	
  implications	
  of	
  collaboration	
  between	
   librarians	
  on	
  this	
  type	
  of	
  research	
  and	
  how	
  that	
  could	
  affect	
  the	
  field	
  more	
  broadly.	
   	
   Recently	
  I	
  read	
  this	
  article	
  about	
  a	
  reference	
  questions	
  review	
  within	
  a	
  smaller	
  university	
   library.	
  	
  As	
  with	
  most	
  studies	
  the	
  article	
  was	
  broken	
  into	
  an	
  introduction,	
  question	
  statement,	
  a	
   literature	
  review,	
  methodology,	
  data	
  analysis,	
  and	
  conclusions.	
  	
  The	
  author	
  performed	
  a	
  study	
   	
   2	
   of	
  almost	
  7000	
  reference	
  transactions	
  at	
  a	
  desk	
  to	
  determine	
  how	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  transactions	
   require	
  the	
  presence	
  of	
  a	
  librarian	
  and	
  applied	
  a	
  cost-­‐benefit	
  analysis	
  indicating	
  the	
  average	
  cost	
   of	
  a	
  reference	
  interaction	
  based	
  on	
  the	
  salary	
  of	
  a	
  librarian.	
   	
   After	
  reading	
  article	
  I	
  felt	
  dissatisfied,	
  and	
  this	
  was	
  a	
  reaction	
  that	
  was	
  separate	
  from	
  my	
   feelings	
  about	
  the	
  conclusions	
  expressed	
  in	
  the	
  article,	
  which	
  I	
  have	
  very	
  strong	
  opinions	
  but	
  is	
   somewhat	
  outside	
  of	
  this	
  discussion.	
  	
  	
   	
   What	
  was	
  interesting	
  about	
  this	
  reaction	
  was	
  I	
  was	
  not	
  able	
  to	
  articulate	
  what	
  my	
  dissatisfaction	
   was	
  for	
  a	
  time,	
  although	
  now	
  reflecting	
  on	
  my	
  background	
  and	
  experiences	
  it	
  has	
  become	
   clearer.	
  	
  When	
  I	
  usually	
  read	
  something	
  I	
  am	
  unhappy	
  with,	
  I	
  react	
  on	
  a	
  completely	
  emotional	
   level.	
  	
  I	
  remember	
  complaining	
  to	
  my	
  colleague	
  about	
  the	
  article	
  expressing	
  without	
  any	
  clearly	
   articulate	
  reasons	
  as	
  to	
  what	
  my	
  concern	
  really	
  was	
  with	
  the	
  research.	
  	
  I	
  remember	
  her	
  looking	
   at	
  me	
  with	
  a	
  smirk,	
  saying	
  “Erin,	
  what	
  is	
  really	
  wrong?”	
  	
  Perhaps	
  this	
  was	
  her	
  attempt	
  to	
  lighten	
   the	
  situation	
  but	
  the	
  question	
  was	
  really	
  illuminating.	
  	
  What	
  was	
  the	
  real	
  problem?	
  	
  This	
  article	
   wasn’t	
  the	
  only	
  piece	
  that	
  has	
  caused	
  this	
  inarticulate	
  feeling	
  of	
  dissatisfaction.	
  	
  A	
  year	
  ago	
  I	
   presented	
  a	
  conference	
  paper	
  on	
  activist	
  images	
  of	
  librarians	
  in	
  popular	
  culture	
  and	
  the	
  role	
  of	
   librarians	
  as	
  “protectors”	
  both	
  in	
  action	
  and	
  in	
  values	
  and	
  I	
  was	
  enormously	
  surprised	
  that	
  I	
  was	
   accepted	
  for	
  the	
  conference.	
  	
  It	
  was	
  an	
  unusual	
  choice	
  as	
  I	
  was	
  situated	
  with	
  individuals	
  talking	
   about	
  budget	
  lines	
  and	
  development	
  of	
  instructional	
  programs.	
  	
  When	
  I	
  was	
  emailing	
  all	
  of	
  my	
   confirmations	
  about	
  the	
  session,	
  I	
  was	
  told	
  my	
  session	
  provided	
  “flair”	
  to	
  the	
  rest	
  of	
  the	
   series.	
  	
  While	
  I	
  believe	
  this	
  was	
  meant	
  as	
  a	
  compliment	
  and	
  I	
  certainly	
  took	
  it	
  as	
  such,	
  I	
  also	
  had	
   the	
  sense	
  that	
  the	
  presentation	
  was	
  meant	
  as	
  a	
  respite	
  from	
  the	
  “serious”	
  material.	
  	
  This	
  was	
   disconcerting.	
  	
  	
  The	
  idea	
  that	
  my	
  commentary	
  on	
  this	
  issue	
  was	
  so	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
  mainstream	
   scholarship	
  that	
  it	
  could	
  be	
  consider	
  kitsch	
  or	
  entertainment	
  did	
  not	
  sit	
  well	
  with	
  me	
  and	
  it	
   began	
  a	
  process	
  of	
  questioning	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  my	
  work	
  that	
  was	
  focused	
  on	
  critical	
  reflection	
  and	
   not	
  practical	
  outcomes.	
  	
  I	
  questioned	
  who	
  I	
  was	
  writing	
  this	
  for	
  and	
  the	
  potential	
  need	
  to	
  modify	
   or	
  erase	
  material	
  that	
  perhaps	
  was	
  consider	
  too	
  heady	
  for	
  my	
  audience.	
  	
  	
  When	
  looking	
  at	
  the	
   conference	
  work	
  coming	
  from	
  my	
  colleagues,	
  I	
  wondered	
  if	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  place	
  in	
  the	
  dialogue	
  for	
   an	
  evaluation	
  of	
  morality	
  and	
  ethics	
  in	
  the	
  profession	
  as	
  presented	
  in	
  public	
  spaces	
  like	
   television	
  and	
  film?	
  And	
  if	
  so,	
  where?	
   	
   I	
  have	
  tried	
  to	
  write	
  that	
  conference	
  paper	
  into	
  a	
  full	
  article	
  but	
  these	
  questions	
  are	
  plaguing	
  me	
   during	
  the	
  writing	
  process	
  as	
  I’m	
  not	
  sure	
  where	
  this	
  research	
  fits	
  in	
  the	
  scheme	
  of	
  library	
  and	
   information	
  scholarly	
  output	
  and	
  whether	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  that	
  particular	
  work	
  can	
  been	
  seen	
   outside	
  of	
  an	
  entertaining	
  break	
  from	
  the	
  “real”	
  scholarly	
  work.	
   	
   So,	
  to	
  put	
  it	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  my	
  colleague	
  expressed	
  it,	
  what	
  is	
  my	
  problem?	
   	
   This	
  talk	
  for	
  me	
  is	
  a	
  way	
  of	
  articulating	
  the	
  roots	
  of	
  the	
  “dissatisfaction”	
  I	
  feel	
  when	
  reading	
  and	
   engaging	
  in	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  research.	
  	
  	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  use	
  this	
  discussion	
  to	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  tension	
   I	
  feel	
  as	
  a	
  young	
  practicing	
  librarian,	
  whose	
  interest	
  in	
  research	
  sometimes	
  moves	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
   “tips	
  &	
  tricks,”	
  best	
  practices,	
  and	
  practical	
  applications	
  of	
  scholarly	
  work.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
   I	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  focus	
  my	
  discussion	
  on	
  the	
  tension	
  between	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  studies	
  as	
   practice	
  and	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  studies	
  as	
  scholarship	
  and	
  how	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  difficulties	
  I	
   believe	
  exists	
  is	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  education	
  I	
  received	
  in	
  library	
  school;	
  the	
  practice	
  of	
  librarianship	
   and	
  the	
  scholarly	
  output	
  that	
  is	
  rooted	
  in	
  practical/managerial	
  perspectives	
  and	
  social	
  science	
   	
   3	
   methodology;	
  and	
  perhaps	
  a	
  lack	
  of	
  understanding	
  from	
  the	
  profession	
  as	
  to	
  where	
  humanities	
   based	
  analysis	
  can	
  fit	
  into	
  the	
  scholarly	
  output	
  of	
  librarians	
  and	
  information	
  professionals.	
  	
  I	
  will	
   also	
  discuss	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  ways	
  I	
  see	
  critical	
  humanities	
  methods	
  apply	
  within	
  the	
  scholarship	
  of	
   library	
  and	
  information	
  studies.	
   	
   The	
  discussion	
  surrounding	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  studies	
  as	
  practice	
  and	
  as	
   scholarship	
  are	
  rooted	
  in	
  age-­‐old	
  problems	
  of	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  education.	
  	
  In	
  The	
  University	
  in	
  a	
   Corporate	
  Culture,	
  Gould	
  (2003)	
  performs	
  a	
  historical	
  survey	
  of	
  education	
  that	
  highlights	
  the	
   social	
  mission	
  and	
  ideals	
  of	
  learning.	
  	
  Through	
  the	
  historical	
  survey	
  Gould	
  examines	
  educational	
   traditions	
  that	
  are	
  philosophically	
  rooted	
  in	
  the	
  growth	
  of	
  the	
  intellect	
  in	
  contrast	
  to	
  education	
   for	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  a	
  goal,	
  or	
  knowledge	
  for	
  exchange	
  for	
  power	
  or	
  position.	
  	
  Gould	
  writes,	
  “…	
   for	
  centuries	
  the	
  knowledge	
  derived	
  from	
  liberal	
  learning	
  has	
  always	
  seemed	
  to	
  embody	
  a	
   tension	
  between	
  utilitarian	
  outcomes	
  and	
  learning	
  for	
  its	
  own	
  sake”	
  (p.	
  149).	
  	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  want	
  to	
   place	
  critical	
  humanities	
  theory	
  or	
  any	
  theory	
  within	
  the	
  “learning	
  for	
  it’s	
  own	
  sake”	
  category,	
   but	
  what	
  I	
  believe	
  Gould	
  is	
  saying	
  is	
  the	
  growth	
  of	
  knowledge	
  that	
  falls	
  outside	
  of	
  a	
  practical	
   application	
  to	
  a	
  given	
  problem	
  is	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  an	
  educational	
  tradition	
  of	
  inquiry	
  for	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
   knowing	
  or	
  more	
  clearly	
  put,	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  the	
  pursuit	
  of	
  educating	
  the	
  mind.	
  	
  This	
  tension	
   between	
  approaches	
  to	
  education	
  certainly	
  applies	
  when	
  examining	
  professional	
  schools.	
  	
  For	
   library	
  and	
  information	
  studies,	
  the	
  focus	
  on	
  utilitarian	
  or	
  “practical	
  applications”	
  of	
  both	
  the	
   university	
  degree	
  and	
  scholarship	
  has	
  very	
  deep	
  roots	
  (Gould,	
  2003).	
   	
   Research	
  on	
  the	
  tension	
  between	
  the	
  “utilitarian”	
  and	
  “learning	
  for	
  its	
  own	
  sake”	
  has	
  been	
   examined	
  as	
  it	
  relates	
  to	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  faculty	
  and	
  education.	
  	
  Richard	
  Cox	
  (2010),	
   identifies	
  the	
  knowledge	
  and	
  information	
  guiding	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  coursework	
  is	
  rooted	
   in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  “chasing	
  credentials”	
  to	
  apply	
  to	
  a	
  specific	
  trade	
  (p.	
  182).	
  Both	
  the	
  literature	
   states	
  and	
  as	
  Dave	
  noted	
  earlier	
  in	
  his	
  conversation	
  with	
  a	
  colleague	
  -­‐-­‐	
  students	
  want	
  “to	
   become	
  practitioners	
  rather	
  than	
  full	
  time	
  scholars.”	
  	
  The	
  expectation	
  of	
  students	
  entering	
  the	
   schools	
  is	
  to	
  gain	
  the	
  degree	
  to	
  apply	
  to	
  the	
  field	
  but	
  due	
  to	
  this	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  utilitarian	
  in	
  library	
   education,	
  departments	
  do	
  not	
  foster,	
  what	
  Cox	
  terms,	
  the,	
  “…	
  asking	
  of	
  questions,	
  as	
  they	
   often	
  seem	
  to	
  possess	
  a	
  focus	
  on	
  pat	
  systems	
  of	
  practice	
  designed	
  to	
  reassure	
  tuition	
  paying	
   students	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  gaining	
  basic	
  tools	
  by	
  which	
  to	
  ply	
  a	
  trade”(p.	
  201).	
  	
  This	
  causes	
   “…confused	
  signals	
  between	
  education	
  and	
  training...”(p.	
  184).	
  	
  In	
  this	
  sense,	
  education	
  for	
  Cox	
   takes	
  on	
  the	
  critical	
  and	
  reflective	
  process	
  that	
  comes	
  with	
  engaging	
  in	
  texts,	
  something	
  he	
  feels	
   is	
  lost	
  in	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  studies,	
  which	
  comes	
  from	
  the	
  traditional	
  notion	
  of	
  “learning	
   for	
  its	
  own	
  sake”	
  (Cox,	
  2010)	
  (Gould,	
  2003).	
   	
   In	
  my	
  own	
  library	
  education	
  I	
  completed	
  courses	
  in	
  collection	
  development,	
  library	
   management,	
  reference	
  practices,	
  and	
  cataloguing,	
  which	
  focused	
  on	
  process	
  over	
  critical	
   reflection	
  –	
  practicality	
  over	
  philosophical	
  or	
  speculative	
  engagement.	
  	
  While	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  want	
  to	
   claim	
  that	
  the	
  education	
  I	
  received	
  as	
  a	
  library	
  student	
  was	
  not	
  beneficial,	
  I	
  do	
  feel	
  now	
  as	
  a	
   practicing	
  librarian	
  who	
  has	
  both	
  the	
  interest	
  and	
  pressure	
  –	
  and	
  I	
  use	
  that	
  term	
  very	
  loosely	
  -­‐-­‐	
   to	
  engage	
  in	
  scholarship,	
  the	
  theoretical	
  underpinning	
  of	
  my	
  library	
  school	
  degree	
  has	
  in	
  some	
   ways	
  limited	
  how	
  I	
  think	
  of	
  approaching	
  research.	
  	
  These	
  courses,	
  as	
  Dave	
  discussed	
  earlier,	
   focused	
  on	
  research	
  that	
  excluded	
  the	
  possibility	
  of	
  selecting	
  from	
  a	
  variety	
  methodologies	
  for	
  a	
   given	
  research	
  problem	
  as	
  the	
  only	
  methodological	
  approach	
  discussed	
  was	
  that	
  of	
  the	
   practicality	
  of	
  scholarship	
  within	
  a	
  social	
  science	
  perspective.	
  	
  This	
  exclusion	
  was	
  a	
  bit	
  perplexing	
   and	
  complicated	
  for	
  me,	
  as	
  a	
  student	
  who’s	
  past	
  scholarly	
  engagement	
  did	
  not	
  solely	
  come	
  out	
   of	
  the	
  social	
  science	
  tradition.	
  	
  As	
  with	
  Dave,	
  I	
  come	
  from	
  a	
  background	
  that,	
  to	
  my	
  mind,	
  is	
  not	
   	
   4	
   necessarily	
  represented	
  in	
  library	
  scholarship	
  and	
  training.	
  	
  I	
  completed	
  a	
  degree	
  in	
   Communication	
  Studies	
  with	
  a	
  focus	
  on	
  media	
  discourse	
  around	
  gender,	
  race	
  and	
  class.	
  	
  This	
   kind	
  of	
  interdisciplinary	
  scholarship	
  focused	
  on	
  feminist,	
  marxist,	
  and	
  critical	
  theory.	
  	
  To	
  give	
  you	
   a	
  sense	
  of	
  the	
  type	
  of	
  research	
  I	
  engaged	
  in	
  I	
  wrote	
  a	
  major	
  paper	
  that	
  examined	
  government	
   funding	
  of	
  Native	
  telecommunications	
  and	
  print	
  media	
  organizations	
  and	
  the	
  effect	
  this	
  had	
  on	
   discourse	
  as	
  it	
  related	
  to	
  such	
  issues	
  as	
  First	
  Nations	
  treaties,	
  land	
  claims,	
  housing,	
  and	
   reparations	
  from	
  the	
  injustice	
  of	
  residential	
  homes.	
  	
  The	
  paper	
  discussed	
  how	
  financial	
  power	
   structures	
  sustained	
  a	
  form	
  of	
  covert	
  censorship	
  on	
  the	
  freedom	
  of	
  expression	
  and	
  thought	
  in	
   the	
  journalistic	
  practices	
  of	
  Native	
  Peoples	
  in	
  Canada	
  as	
  it	
  related	
  to	
  potentially	
  sensitive	
   political	
  issues.	
  	
  This	
  was	
  the	
  kind	
  of	
  scholarly	
  engagement	
  I	
  had	
  become	
  accustomed	
  to;	
   however	
  once	
  in	
  library	
  school,	
  I	
  was	
  immersed	
  in	
  gaining	
  a	
  knowledge	
  base	
  rooted	
  in	
  the	
   practical	
  application	
  of	
  research	
  determined	
  by	
  experience	
  and	
  using	
  scholarly	
  methods	
   designed	
  to	
  “solve	
  problems”.	
  	
  	
  	
   	
   While	
  it	
  is	
  clear	
  from	
  Cox’s	
  (2010)	
  commentary	
  that	
  faculty	
  and	
  scholars	
  certainly	
  feel	
  the	
   constraints	
  of	
  utilitarianism	
  within	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  departments.	
  	
  It	
  is	
  also	
  clear	
  that	
  as	
  a	
   library	
  student,	
  I	
  felt	
  certain	
  tensions	
  in	
  my	
  own	
  studies	
  in	
  library	
  school	
  due	
  to	
  a	
  program	
  of	
   study	
  that	
  wasn’t	
  reflective	
  of	
  my	
  past	
  education.	
  	
  However,	
  for	
  me,	
  the	
  larger	
  concern	
  about	
   this	
  focus	
  on	
  practical	
  application	
  in	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  education	
  is	
  the	
  divide	
  between	
   “practice”	
  and	
  “asking	
  questions”	
  and	
  that	
  it	
  becomes	
  less	
  visible	
  when	
  students	
  become	
   practitioners.	
  Because	
  knowledge	
  that	
  focuses	
  on	
  the	
  reflective,	
  speculative,	
  philosophical	
  or	
   critical,	
  was	
  lost	
  within	
  my	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  education	
  as	
  the	
  focus	
  was	
  on	
  training	
  the	
   practitioner,	
  when	
  I	
  gained	
  entrance	
  into	
  academic	
  librarianship	
  and	
  turned	
  to	
  thinking	
  about	
   research	
  and	
  publishing	
  my	
  thoughts	
  around	
  formulating	
  research	
  questions	
  began	
  reflecting	
  an	
   overall	
  theoretical	
  approach	
  which	
  governed	
  the	
  field.	
   	
   The	
  focus	
  in	
  library	
  education	
  on	
  social	
  science	
  perspectives	
  is	
  largely	
  reflected	
  within	
  the	
  field	
   of	
  practice.	
  	
  Librarians	
  within	
  the	
  field	
  are	
  required	
  to	
  balance	
  budgets,	
  manage	
  staff,	
  and	
   develop	
  programming	
  and	
  due	
  to	
  this	
  the	
  scholarship	
  is	
  affected.	
  There	
  is	
  a	
  very	
  practical	
   element	
  to	
  the	
  work	
  that	
  we	
  do.	
  	
  In	
  my	
  experience,	
  although	
  this	
  has	
  support	
  in	
  the	
  literature,	
   both	
  in	
  education	
  and	
  practice,	
  librarianship	
  has	
  been	
  governed	
  by	
  notions	
  of	
  practical	
   approaches	
  to	
  problem	
  solving	
  and	
  management	
  of	
  resources	
  which	
  include	
  both	
  human	
  (e.g.	
   staff)	
  and	
  financial	
  (e.g.	
  collection	
  budgets).	
  	
  With	
  the	
  problem-­‐solving	
  approach	
  to	
  library	
  and	
   information	
  practice	
  comes	
  scholarship	
  that	
  I	
  see	
  as	
  rooted	
  in	
  “tips	
  and	
  trick”	
  or	
  “best	
   practices.”	
  	
  This	
  kind	
  of	
  scholarship	
  focuses	
  on	
  the	
  problem	
  and	
  ways	
  the	
  problem	
  can	
  be	
  solved	
   and	
  how	
  to	
  apply	
  these	
  practices	
  to	
  similar	
  situations	
  for	
  similar	
  outcomes.	
  	
  	
  As	
  Pawley	
  (1998)	
   illustrates	
  within	
  management	
  perspectives	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  practice	
  is	
  focused	
  on	
  inputs	
   and	
  output	
  models	
  and	
  how	
  best	
  to	
  deploy	
  the	
  resources	
  for	
  the	
  greatest	
  outcomes.	
  The	
  focus	
   then	
  is	
  on	
  making	
  decisions	
  that	
  are	
  based	
  on	
  quantifiable	
  and	
  measurable	
  outcomes.	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
   	
   For	
  practicing	
  librarians,	
  this	
  may	
  not	
  seem	
  problematic.	
  	
  Often	
  our	
  work	
  is	
  tied	
  to	
  budgetary	
   constraints	
  and	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  providing	
  measurable	
  data	
  that	
  will	
  increase	
  support	
  for	
  serving	
  a	
   large	
  portion	
  of	
  library	
  users	
  is	
  efficient	
  and,	
  in	
  many	
  ways	
  effective.	
  The	
  reporting	
  of	
  successes	
   is	
  a	
  way	
  to	
  maintain	
  continued	
  support	
  and	
  reporting	
  these	
  outcomes	
  within	
  library	
  journals	
  and	
   conferences	
  is	
  also	
  effective	
  at	
  providing	
  other	
  practitioners	
  models	
  of	
  service	
  that	
  could	
  benefit	
   their	
  own	
  library	
  system.	
   	
   In	
  my	
  career	
  as	
  an	
  academic	
  librarian,	
  my	
  initial	
  research	
  focused	
  solely	
  on	
  the	
  managerial	
  and	
   	
   5	
   practical	
  problem-­‐solving	
  approaches	
  to	
  research.	
  	
  I’ve	
  written	
  articles	
  and	
  presented	
  sessions	
   with	
  social	
  science	
  frameworks	
  such	
  as:	
  Tutoring	
  the	
  Virtual	
  Student	
  –	
  An	
  Instructional	
   Framework	
  for	
  Information	
  Literacy	
  Objectives	
  in	
  Chat	
  Reference,	
  Preparing	
  the	
  Front	
  Line	
  –	
   Designing	
  a	
  Training	
  Program	
  for	
  new	
  Librarians,	
  or	
  Liaising	
  in	
  the	
  Between	
  -­‐	
  A	
  Plan	
  for	
   Interdisciplinary	
  Outreach.	
  	
  All	
  of	
  these	
  papers	
  reflected	
  the	
  practical	
  work	
  that	
  I	
  was	
  directly	
   engaged	
  in.	
  	
  I	
  was	
  a	
  coordinator	
  for	
  virtual	
  reference	
  and	
  needed	
  to	
  develop	
  instructional	
   models	
  for	
  virtual	
  reference	
  provision.	
  	
  I	
  was	
  a	
  coordinator	
  for	
  part-­‐time	
  librarians	
  and	
  needed	
   to	
  develop	
  a	
  program	
  of	
  training	
  and	
  professional	
  development.	
  	
  As	
  an	
  interdisciplinary	
  liaison	
   librarian,	
  I	
  needed	
  to	
  develop	
  a	
  program	
  of	
  outreach	
  to	
  faculty	
  and	
  students	
  with	
  librarians	
  in	
   their	
  “home”	
  departments.	
  	
  My	
  scholarship	
  reflected	
  directly	
  my	
  work	
  and	
  I	
  was	
  successful	
  in	
   gaining	
  entrance	
  to	
  library	
  conferences	
  and	
  publications	
  with	
  this	
  work	
  because	
  I	
  was	
  “speaking	
   the	
  language”	
  of	
  library	
  ‘science.’	
  	
  I	
  was	
  speaking	
  to	
  the	
  practical	
  and	
  managerial	
  aspects	
  of	
   library	
  work.	
   	
   Dave	
  noted	
  in	
  his	
  own	
  presentation,	
  the	
  focus	
  on	
  the	
  social	
  science	
  methodological	
  approach	
  to	
   library	
  and	
  information	
  scholarship	
  creates	
  a	
  system	
  of	
  “acceptable”	
  and	
  “unacceptable,”	
  or	
   “legitimate”	
  or	
  “illegitimate”	
  research	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  I	
  use	
  those	
  loaded	
  terms	
  in	
  reflecting	
  on	
  Dave’s	
   conversation	
  about	
  the	
  scholar-­‐practitioner’s	
  rejected	
  article	
  that	
  didn’t	
  fall	
  within	
  the	
  standard	
   social	
  science	
  headings.	
  	
  The	
  research	
  I	
  engaged	
  in	
  early	
  on	
  certainly	
  falls	
  within	
  the	
  realm	
  of	
  the	
   practical/managerial	
  and	
  was	
  given	
  ‘space’	
  within	
  conferences	
  and	
  publications;	
  however,	
  this	
   dominant	
  scholarly	
  discourse	
  within	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  scholarship	
  can	
  silence	
  alternate	
   starting	
  points	
  for	
  intellectual	
  work	
  for	
  practicing	
  librarians.	
  	
  	
  The	
  initial	
  “silencing”	
  of	
  critical	
   humanities	
  research	
  approaches	
  comes	
  from	
  library	
  schools	
  focus	
  on	
  practical	
  application	
  within	
   a	
  social	
  science	
  perspective.	
  	
  	
  By	
  focusing	
  on	
  social	
  science	
  methods	
  practicing	
  librarians	
  are	
   initially	
  excluded	
  from	
  conceptually	
  thinking	
  or	
  knowing	
  about	
  critical	
  humanities	
  theories	
  in	
   connection	
  to	
  library	
  scholarship.	
  	
  	
  This	
  initial	
  lack	
  of	
  knowledge	
  around	
  non-­‐social	
  science	
   methodologies	
  and	
  approaches	
  to	
  scholarship	
  is	
  compounded	
  when	
  students	
  become	
   practitioners.	
  While	
  I	
  knew	
  of	
  critical	
  humanities	
  research	
  because	
  of	
  my	
  background,	
  once	
  in	
   the	
  profession	
  I	
  felt	
  limited	
  in	
  engaging	
  in	
  this	
  kind	
  research	
  because	
  of	
  what	
  I	
  was	
  introduced	
  to	
   in	
  terms	
  of	
  “acceptable”	
  scholarship.	
  	
  I	
  must	
  say,	
  I	
  have	
  never	
  directly	
  been	
  told	
  that	
  I	
  could	
  not	
   engage	
  in	
  humanities	
  based	
  research	
  as	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  my	
  research	
  portfolio;	
  however,	
  the	
  kind	
  of	
   research	
  that	
  I	
  am	
  surrounded	
  by	
  does	
  not	
  reflect	
  this	
  kind	
  of	
  scholarly	
  engagement,	
  which	
   perhaps	
  unintentionally,	
  acts	
  as	
  a	
  deterrent.	
  	
  	
  	
   	
   I	
  believe,	
  due	
  to	
  this	
  introduction	
  to	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  scholarship	
  both	
  in	
  my	
  education	
   and	
  as	
  seen	
  within	
  practice,	
  a	
  situation	
  is	
  created–	
  and	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  believe	
  necessarily	
  this	
  is	
   intentionally	
  done	
  -­‐	
  where	
  1)	
  practicing	
  librarians	
  scholarly	
  engagement	
  will	
  preference	
  practical	
   application	
  and	
  social	
  science	
  methodologies	
  over	
  all	
  others;	
  2)	
  practicing	
  librarians	
  may	
  only	
   see	
  the	
  benefit	
  of	
  scholarship	
  if	
  it	
  relates	
  to	
  what	
  Bill	
  Crowley	
  (2005)	
  terms	
  in,	
  Spanning	
  the	
   Theory-­‐Practice	
  Divide,	
  “useful	
  theory”	
  which	
  is	
  theory	
  that	
  agrees	
  with	
  practical	
  experience,	
   that	
  is	
  effective	
  in	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  settings	
  and	
  yields	
  results	
  (p.	
  18);	
  3)	
  Once	
  inside	
  the	
  practice	
  of	
   librarianship,	
  where	
  librarians	
  are	
  bound	
  by	
  not	
  only	
  the	
  day-­‐to-­‐day	
  practices	
  but	
  the	
  need	
  to	
   justify	
  these	
  practices	
  through	
  measurable	
  outcomes,	
  may	
  not	
  see	
  the	
  use	
  or	
  need	
  of	
  critical	
   humanities	
  study	
  within	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  work	
  –	
  and	
  with	
  this	
  perception	
  of	
   “uselessness”	
  behind	
  research	
  approaches	
  that	
  do	
  not	
  come	
  from	
  the	
  social	
  sciences	
   perspectives,	
  a	
  situation	
  can	
  occur	
  where	
  the	
  critical	
  social	
  debates	
  around	
  libraries	
  and	
   information	
  is	
  relatively	
  ignored	
  or,	
  as	
  Pawley	
  (1998)	
  states,	
  “…stigmatized	
  as	
  “airhead”	
  or	
   “philosophical”	
  (technical)…”	
  (p.	
  132)	
  or	
  in	
  the	
  case	
  of	
  my	
  own	
  conference	
  work,	
  deemed	
  as	
   	
   6	
   escapism	
  from	
  the	
  “real”	
  scholarly	
  work.	
  	
  	
   This	
  potential	
  stigmatization	
  of	
  critical	
  humanities	
  work	
  within	
  the	
  profession	
  causes	
  me	
  to	
   question	
  the	
  importance	
  of	
  the	
  research	
  I	
  am	
  interested	
  in	
  performing,	
  the	
  audience	
  I	
  am	
   engaging	
  with	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  not	
  only	
  their	
  knowledge	
  of	
  this	
  kind	
  of	
  research	
  but	
  the	
  degree	
  to	
   which	
  they	
  are	
  open	
  to	
  the	
  discussion,	
  and	
  the	
  place	
  of	
  my	
  research	
  in	
  the	
  professional	
   literature	
  and	
  conferences.	
  	
  If	
  the	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  education	
  and	
  scholarship	
  are	
  prone	
   to	
  focus	
  on	
  pragmatic	
  approaches,	
  do	
  publications	
  or	
  conferences	
  that	
  focus	
  on	
  libraries	
  have	
   space	
  for	
  work	
  which	
  lies	
  outside	
  of	
  this	
  perspective?	
  	
  	
  I	
  found	
  a	
  place	
  at	
  a	
  conference	
  with	
  a	
   textual	
  analysis	
  of	
  media	
  representations	
  of	
  librarians	
  but	
  the	
  conference	
  presentation	
  was	
   designed	
  to	
  touch	
  on	
  issues	
  without	
  going	
  into	
  depth	
  about	
  the	
  theory	
  driving	
  my	
  ideas.	
  	
  I	
   wanted	
  it	
  to	
  be	
  accessible	
  to	
  an	
  audience	
  that	
  I	
  thought	
  was	
  looking	
  for	
  “flair”.	
  	
  	
  But	
  what	
  about	
   the	
  paper	
  that	
  provides	
  a	
  more	
  in-­‐depth	
  discussion	
  about,	
  for	
  example,	
  the	
  popular	
  culture	
   image	
  of	
  librarian	
  superheroes	
  as	
  problematic	
  due	
  to	
  the	
  librarian	
  personae	
  being	
  relegated	
  to	
   the	
  secret	
  identity	
  which	
  acts	
  as	
  contrast	
  to	
  the	
  hyper-­‐masculinized	
  superhero	
  personae,	
   thereby	
  defining	
  desirable	
  masculinity	
  in	
  contrast	
  to	
  the	
  undesirable	
  feminine	
  characteristics	
   such	
  as	
  weak,	
  passive,	
  demure	
  or	
  shy,	
  that	
  are	
  historically	
  associated	
  to	
  the	
  profession	
  of	
   librarianship.	
  	
  Does	
  this	
  feminist	
  critique	
  have	
  a	
  place	
  in	
  library	
  literature	
  or	
  conferences?	
  I	
  am	
   not	
  sure.	
  	
   	
   An	
  excellent	
  example	
  of	
  this	
  type	
  of	
  exclusion	
  is	
  with	
  this	
  particular	
  discussion	
  we	
  are	
  having	
   today	
  which	
  had	
  been	
  turned	
  down	
  by	
  two	
  large	
  conferences	
  before	
  finding	
  a	
  space	
  at	
  BCLA,	
  as	
   noted	
  by	
  Dave	
  earlier.	
  	
  In	
  looking	
  at	
  the	
  workshop	
  offerings	
  for	
  those	
  two	
  conferences,	
  it	
  is	
  no	
   surprise	
  to	
  me	
  as	
  to	
  why	
  we	
  were	
  excluded.	
   	
   While	
  there	
  is	
  discussion	
  in	
  library	
  literature	
  that	
  relates	
  to	
  the	
  value	
  of	
  critical	
  humanities	
   perspectives,	
  the	
  discussion	
  appears	
  to	
  me	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  top-­‐down	
  approach.	
  	
  Library	
  and	
   information	
  scholarship	
  from	
  a	
  critical	
  humanities	
  perspective,	
  as	
  far	
  as	
  I	
  am	
  aware,	
  is	
  coming	
   from	
  our	
  faculty	
  scholars	
  and	
  not	
  from	
  practicing	
  librarians.	
  	
  The	
  discussion	
  of	
  the	
  value	
  of	
   critical	
  theory	
  in	
  librarianship	
  comes	
  primarily	
  from	
  faculty	
  researchers	
  who	
  mention	
  the	
  benefit	
   of	
  this	
  theoretical	
  approach	
  as	
  a	
  tool	
  to	
  critique	
  utilitarianism	
  and	
  managerialism	
  in	
  the	
   profession,	
  to	
  expand	
  knowledge	
  and	
  breadth	
  of	
  understanding	
  of	
  disciplines,	
  and	
  address	
  the	
   current	
  problems	
  within	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  studies	
  surrounding	
  such	
  issues	
  as	
  corporate	
   information	
  digitization	
  and	
  access,	
  and	
  technological	
  determinism.	
  	
  These	
  debates	
  come	
  from	
   scholars	
  who	
  wish	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  interdisciplinary	
  discussions	
  such	
  as	
  the	
  generation	
  of	
   information	
  and	
  the	
  ethics	
  surrounding	
  access	
  and	
  use.	
  	
  	
  However,	
  how	
  to	
  break	
  what	
  Gloria	
   Lecke	
  (2010)	
  calls	
  the	
  “self	
  legitimation	
  cycle”	
  (p.	
  xii)	
  by	
  which	
  the	
  research	
  within	
  the	
  field	
  is	
   primarily	
  a	
  process	
  of	
  legitimating	
  the	
  work	
  we	
  perform	
  over	
  critically	
  engaging	
  in	
  questions	
  of	
   practice,	
  isn’t	
  easily	
  addressed	
  from	
  a	
  top	
  down	
  approach.	
  	
  If	
  faculty	
  are	
  the	
  only	
  ones	
  bringing	
   critical	
  analysis	
  to	
  the	
  profession,	
  I	
  believe	
  it	
  will	
  remain	
  an	
  intellectual	
  pursuit	
  outside	
  of	
  the	
   work	
  of	
  practicing	
  librarians	
  and	
  librarian	
  practitioners	
  will	
  continue	
  in	
  research	
  that	
  supports	
   the	
  dominant	
  practical/managerial	
  social	
  science	
  perspectives	
  thereby	
  placing	
  all	
  other	
  research	
   in	
  the	
  unacceptable	
  “other”	
  category	
  (Lecke,	
  et.	
  al,	
  2010).	
   	
   In	
  understanding	
  the	
  current	
  situation	
  of	
  the	
  profession	
  and	
  practitioner	
  research,	
  how	
  can	
   humanities-­‐based	
  scholarship	
  become	
  a	
  part	
  of	
  discourse?	
  	
  For	
  Crowley	
  (2005),	
  the	
  problem	
   with	
  critical	
  theories	
  application	
  in	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  research	
  is	
  based	
  in	
  the	
  problem	
  of	
   its	
  inability	
  to	
  solve	
  practical	
  problems	
  and	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  accordance	
  with	
  the	
  experiences	
  of	
   practitioners.	
  	
  Furthermore,	
  he	
  writes,	
  “It	
  will	
  require	
  a	
  proverbial	
  sea	
  change	
  –	
  Rawley’s	
   	
   7	
   revolution	
  or	
  at	
  least	
  the	
  presence	
  of	
  widely	
  acknowledge	
  revolutionary	
  conditions	
  –	
  for	
  a	
  larger	
   American	
  culture	
  to	
  view	
  the	
  findings	
  of	
  critical	
  theory	
  as	
  acceptable	
  for	
  decision	
  making	
  in	
  most	
   off-­‐campus	
  environments”	
  (p.	
  76).	
  This	
  seems	
  very	
  negative.	
  	
  	
  I	
  believe	
  Crowley	
  (2005)	
  is	
  correct	
   in	
  stating	
  that	
  the	
  profession	
  now	
  may	
  only	
  see	
  the	
  usefulness	
  of	
  methodologies	
  insofar	
  as	
  it	
   solves	
  practical	
  problems	
  within	
  the	
  profession	
  but	
  I	
  also	
  believe	
  that	
  as	
  practitioners	
  we	
  need	
   to	
  reconceptualization	
  scholarship	
  and	
  inquiry.	
  I’m	
  also	
  a	
  believer	
  that	
  a	
  revolutionary	
  shift	
  is	
   not	
  far	
  off	
  for	
  libraries	
  and	
  there	
  are	
  possibilities	
  to	
  guiding	
  that	
  shift	
  right	
  now	
  if	
  we	
  begin	
  the	
   discussion.	
   	
   I	
  think	
  we	
  are	
  in	
  a	
  state	
  where	
  the	
  future	
  of	
  librarianship	
  and	
  libraries	
  is	
  in	
  question.	
  	
  New	
   technologies	
  continue	
  to	
  change	
  the	
  functional	
  positions	
  of	
  librarians	
  and	
  our	
  reliance	
  on	
  them	
   in	
  terms	
  of	
  defining	
  our	
  work	
  is	
  somewhat	
  problematic	
  and	
  panic-­‐making;	
  however,	
  the	
   underlying	
  principles	
  in	
  which	
  library	
  services	
  and	
  resources	
  are	
  developed	
  are	
  not	
  based	
  on	
  the	
   technology	
  but	
  on	
  the	
  mission	
  statements	
  of	
  our	
  library	
  associations.	
   	
   If	
  we	
  examine	
  the	
  values	
  and	
  mission	
  statements	
  of	
  libraries,	
  we	
  find	
  phrases	
  on	
   “enlightenment,”	
  “censorship,”	
  “free	
  expression,”	
  “access	
  to	
  information,”	
  and	
  the	
  right	
  to	
  use	
   the	
  library	
  regardless	
  of	
  “origin,	
  age,	
  background,	
  or	
  views”	
  (ALA,	
  2011,	
  para.	
  1).	
  	
  These	
  are	
  all	
   statements	
  taken	
  directly	
  from	
  the	
  ALA	
  Bill	
  of	
  Rights.	
  	
  The	
  question	
  is	
  then,	
  where	
  does	
  the	
   ‘science’	
  in	
  library	
  science	
  fit	
  into	
  the	
  discussions?	
  	
  	
  While	
  much	
  of	
  library	
  and	
  information	
   scholarship	
  focuses	
  on	
  practice,	
  whereas	
  knowledge	
  and	
  meaning	
  is	
  determined	
  by	
  experience	
   and	
  research	
  is	
  meant	
  as	
  a	
  process	
  of	
  solving	
  problems,	
  the	
  value	
  statements	
  behind	
  the	
   profession	
  of	
  librarianship	
  deals	
  with	
  the	
  social,	
  non-­‐quantifiable	
  and	
  philosophical	
  (Gould,	
   2003)	
  (Pawley,	
  1995).	
  	
  To	
  ignore	
  or	
  exclude	
  research	
  that	
  engages	
  in,	
  what	
  Pawley	
  (1995)	
  calls,	
   “…asking	
  what,	
  fundamentally,	
  we	
  are	
  about…”	
  creates	
  a	
  “…politically	
  naïve	
  profession…”	
  (p.	
   132)	
  but	
  also	
  ignores	
  the	
  foundations	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  profession	
  was	
  built.	
  	
  I	
  believe	
  critical	
   humanities	
  scholarship	
  offers	
  librarians	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  discourse	
  about	
  our	
  own	
   missions	
  and	
  values	
  and	
  opens	
  the	
  door	
  to	
  the	
  possibility	
  of	
  critique	
  around	
  the	
  very	
  practice	
  of	
   library	
  work.	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  be	
  clear.	
  	
  I	
  am	
  not	
  saying	
  that	
  the	
  social	
  science	
  approach	
  to	
  library	
   scholarship	
  is	
  without	
  value,	
  but	
  I	
  am	
  saying	
  that	
  it	
  cannot	
  provide	
  the	
  whole	
  picture	
  of	
  the	
   profession.	
  	
  As	
  Dave	
  said	
  earlier,	
  and	
  I	
  agree	
  with	
  him	
  completely,	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  want	
  to	
  exclude	
   library	
  research	
  that	
  comes	
  out	
  of	
  a	
  practical	
  problem-­‐solving	
  approach.	
  	
  There	
  is	
  certainly	
  value	
   to	
  this	
  work.	
  	
  However,	
  I	
  believe	
  there	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  space	
  for	
  critical	
  humanities	
  scholarship	
  in	
   librarianship	
  as	
  a	
  viable,	
  important,	
  and	
  accepted	
  form	
  of	
  inquiry	
  especially	
  in-­‐light	
  of	
  our	
   guiding	
  principles	
  that	
  don’t	
  fall	
  within	
  the	
  problem-­‐solving	
  paradigm	
  or	
  within	
  the	
  easily	
   measurable	
  or	
  quantifiable	
  methodology.	
  	
  I	
  believe	
  our	
  scholarship	
  needs	
  to	
  holistically	
   represent	
  the	
  profession	
  and	
  at	
  this	
  point	
  I’m	
  not	
  sure	
  it	
  does.	
   	
   I	
  most	
  certainly	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  the	
  answers	
  to	
  the	
  question	
  of	
  how	
  to	
  involve	
  critical	
  humanities	
   research	
  in	
  the	
  discourse	
  of	
  librarianship	
  and	
  my	
  own	
  reading	
  of	
  the	
  problem	
  has	
  just	
  raised	
   more	
  issues	
  I	
  think	
  than	
  answers	
  but	
  I	
  do	
  believe	
  there	
  are	
  some	
  interesting	
  possible	
   implications	
  for	
  critical	
  humanities	
  approaches	
  to	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  research.	
  The	
   application	
  of	
  critical	
  humanities	
  theories	
  can	
  offer	
  inquiry	
  into	
  such	
  things	
  as	
  the	
   corporatization	
  of	
  public	
  knowledge,	
  the	
  organization	
  and	
  development	
  of	
  collections	
  or	
  subject	
   headings	
  that	
  represent	
  under-­‐served	
  communities,	
  and	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  language	
  in	
  our	
  institutional	
   documents	
  that	
  exclude	
  individuals	
  development	
  of	
  knowledge	
  or	
  ways	
  of	
  learning	
  based	
  on	
   race,	
  sex,	
  gender,	
  and	
  class.	
  Perhaps	
  library	
  scholarship	
  that	
  includes	
  the	
  range	
  of	
  exchange,	
   from	
  the	
  social	
  scientific	
  to	
  humanities	
  perspectives	
  and	
  methodologies,	
  will	
  provide	
  a	
  unified	
   	
   8	
   voice	
  in	
  progressing	
  the	
  profession	
  through	
  both	
  the	
  practical	
  process	
  of,	
  for	
  example,	
   developing	
  programming	
  and	
  collections	
  that	
  represent	
  the	
  people	
  we	
  serve	
  but	
  also	
  by	
  making	
   plain	
  through	
  a	
  deeper	
  social,	
  cultural,	
  class	
  or	
  gendered	
  analysis,	
  structures	
  that	
  hinder	
  the	
   profession	
  in	
  truly	
  moving	
  forward	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  deeply	
  connects	
  to	
  our	
  un-­‐measurable	
  or	
  non-­‐ quantifiable	
  goals.	
  	
  	
   	
   	
   References	
   	
   	
   American	
  Library	
  Association.	
  (2011).	
  Library	
  bill	
  of	
  rights.	
  Retrieved	
  March,	
  2011,	
  from	
   http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/index.cfm	
   	
   Cox,	
  R.	
  J.	
  (2010).	
  The	
  demise	
  of	
  the	
  library	
  school:	
  Personal	
  reflections	
  on	
  professional	
  education	
   in	
  the	
  modern	
  corporate	
  university.	
  Litwin	
  Books.	
   	
   Crowley,	
  W.	
  A.	
  (2005).	
  Spanning	
  the	
  theory-­‐practice	
  divide	
  in	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  science.	
   Scarecrow	
  Press.	
   	
   Gould,	
  E.	
  (2003).	
  The	
  university	
  in	
  a	
  corporate	
  culture.	
  Yale	
  University	
  Press.	
   	
   Leckie,	
  G.	
  J.,	
  Given,	
  L.	
  M.,	
  &	
  Buschman,	
  J.	
  (2010).	
  Critical	
  theory	
  for	
  library	
  and	
  information	
   science:	
  Exploring	
  the	
  social	
  from	
  across	
  the	
  disciplines.	
  Santa	
  Barbara,	
  Calif:	
  Libraries	
   Unlimited.	
   	
   Pawley,	
  C.	
  (1998).	
  Hegemony's	
  handmaid?	
  The	
  library	
  and	
  information	
  studies	
  curriculum	
  from	
   a	
  class	
  perspective.	
  The	
  Library	
  Quarterly,	
  123-­‐144.	
   	
   Pawley,	
  Christine.	
  2003.	
  “Information	
  Literacy:	
  A	
  Contradictory	
  Coupling.”	
  The	
  Library	
  Quarterly	
   73	
  (4):	
  422-­‐452.	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   9	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
   	
  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Japan 6 0
China 2 0
Canada 2 0
United Kingdom 1 0
United States 1 5
City Views Downloads
Tokyo 6 0
Beijing 2 0
Unknown 1 0
Burlington 1 0
Croydon 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items